These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

106 related items for PubMed ID: 21529923

  • 1. Nanofilled and microhybrid composite restorations: Five-year clinical wear performances.
    Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P.
    Dent Mater; 2011 Jul; 27(7):692-700. PubMed ID: 21529923
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P.
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
    Krämer N, Reinelt C, García-Godoy F, Taschner M, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R.
    Am J Dent; 2009 Aug; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Clinical wear rate of direct and indirect posterior composite resin restorations.
    Cetin AR, Unlu N.
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2012 Jun; 32(3):e87-94. PubMed ID: 22408783
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.
    Busato AL, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Carrilho MR.
    Am J Dent; 2001 Oct; 14(5):304-8. PubMed ID: 11803995
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Sadeghi M, Lynch CD, Shahamat N.
    J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years.
    Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R.
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jun; 25(6):750-9. PubMed ID: 19237189
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Clinical performance and SEM evaluation of direct composite restorations in primary molars.
    Puppin-Rontani RM, de Góes MF, Voelske CE, García-Godoy F.
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):255-61. PubMed ID: 17073199
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study.
    Pesun IJ, Olson AK, Hodges JS, Anderson GC.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 11005910
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations.
    Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P.
    Clin Oral Investig; 2010 Aug; 14(4):441-58. PubMed ID: 19669176
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Nanohybrid and microfilled hybrid versus conventional hybrid composite restorations: 5-year clinical wear performance.
    Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P.
    Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Feb; 16(1):181-90. PubMed ID: 21221678
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Effect of an adhesive bonding system on wear resistance of resin composite restorations.
    Shinkai K, Suzuki S, Katoh Y.
    Quintessence Int; 1997 Oct; 28(10):687-93. PubMed ID: 9477890
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Potential of restorative systems with simplified adhesives: quantitative analysis of wear and marginal adaptation in vitro.
    Göhring TN, Schönenberger KA, Lutz F.
    Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):275-82. PubMed ID: 14579884
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The influence of antagonistic surface roughness on the wear of human enamel and nanofilled composite resin artificial teeth.
    Ghazal M, Kern M.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 May; 101(5):342-9. PubMed ID: 19410068
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Comparison of wear and clinical performance between amalgam, composite and open sandwich restorations: 2-year results.
    Sachdeo A, Gray GB, Sulieman MA, Jagger DC.
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2004 Mar; 12(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 15058177
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Effects of layering techniques on the micro-tensile bond strength to dentin in resin composite restorations.
    Niu Y, Ma X, Fan M, Zhu S.
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jan; 25(1):129-34. PubMed ID: 18614225
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Swift EJ, Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD.
    Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Direct dentin bonding technique sensitivity when using air/suction drying steps.
    Magne P, Mahallati R, Bazos P, So WS.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2008 Jun; 20(2):130-8; discussion 139-40. PubMed ID: 18380845
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in Class I and II restorations: 2-year results.
    Lundin SA, Rasmusson CG.
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Oct; 35(9):758-62. PubMed ID: 15471000
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. The effect of different drying methods for single step adhesive systems on microleakage of tooth colored restorations.
    Owens BM.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2003 Feb 15; 4(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 12595929
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 6.